there we go. so, before you today is a amendment to the jobs housing linkage ordinance, a program that we actually administer through the mayor's office of housing. so, this is a brief overview of what we will be presenting. i'll provide a brief overview of the ordinance itself. the proposed amendment to the ordinance, patricia will go over the pier 70 development challenges for which the port hopes to apply this particular ordinance change, some of the feasibility and appraisal issues as well as some state legislation that went along with this. and then i will close with next steps and public outreach. so, the jobs housing linkage program essentially imposes fees on the development of most commercial development within san francisco in order to meet the demand for affordable housing produced by the new employment that is brought forth because of the new development.

so, fees are imposed on things like research and development, retail, large big box retail as well as other commercial development. and then the fees are administered by our office when they're put into the city's affordable housing fund along with things like the inclusionary housing fees. and then we use those funds through the mayor's office of housing to support the construction of new affordable housing units. the actual amendment before you today would authorize mo and the port to actually enter into an alternative method to meet those particular obligations on port property. as said we would be entering into an m-o-u specifically. this ordinance change would be consistent with state law that was authorized the port land for affordable housing. that would be in exchange for the fees that they would be otherwise paying on port property. and it would be essentially a credit to the fees that would

be paid in equivalencies. and the land that would be suitable for affordable housing, we would be provided to us at below market rates so that we would be able to use it, then, for future development. and then i'll turn it next to trisha. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, trisha, port staff accompanied by the special projects manager. i'd like to just start by thanking supervisor kim for her leadership on this item and i'd like to also thank theresa with the mayor's office of housing for their assistance as well. so, as port staff have articulated through its ten-year capital plan which has been forwarded to the board of supervisors, there are some unique characteristics of port property that drive up the cost of development. we are typically building on filled land which is not seismically based so you have

to drive piles to support structures. we have a lot of historic resources that are expensive to save and oftentimes we have environmental remediation challenges with port property, which we are addressing with our regulatory partners. in 1997 the port completed a seven-year planning process to look at potential uses of port property with broad consensus of the waterfront land use plan. and it provided for a range of potential uses at different sites and there are some sites that are no longer needed for maritime purposes. often these are field lots that are on the west side of the embarcadaro and there we conat thevtion place uses like residential office, hotels, et cetera. in 2007 the port worked with state senator carol migden to terminate the trust use restrictions on some of the

seawall lots on south of market street. in order to get to residential and office types of uses we have to terminate the trust use restrictions that apply in state law. and the legislature did that. they found the seawall lots were no longer needed for water access. last year we worked with assemblyman tom ammiano and ab 26 49 signed into law by the governor december 29th this year. it found seawall lot [speaker not understood] north of market street is no longer needed for trust purposes and the legislation allowed the city to contemplate affordable housing at this site as part of an effort that would help to offset jobs housing, linkage fees owed after 70. that legislation also contemplates similar flexibility at seawall lot 37, which is in mission bay.

this slide shows at 815 parcel. port staff is suggesting that seawall 2-21 is part of [speaker not understood] by ab 629 might be an appropriate site for affordable housing, but that would be subject to review under ceqa and further outreach to the surrounding neighborhood. >> ms. pasad, which street is that parcel on? >> it's the -- bounded by broadway and [speaker not understood], correct? >> thank you. >> sorry, it is the map is a little small. which would be subject to review under ceqa and further outreach to the surrounding neighborhood. it's about a block and a half off of the embarcadaro. it's almost an acre in size. and is a very developable parcel that exists in the northeast water froth historic district. article 10 of the planning code

established the northeast waterfront historic water district and describes types of architectural streitv and building styles that is appropriate for that local historic district. and we hope to work with the mayor's office of housing to see if this site is indeed appropriate for affordable housing. >> thank you. >> lastly, the next steps we'll be undertaking this should resolution pass, we would be returning to the northeast waterfront advisory group with the port, of course, ab 26 49, and also the action on this particular legislation. the port and our office would be continuing to look at the feasibility and appraisal discussions on potential sites. one of them could be [inaudible] seual lot 3221. we would be available for updating historic preservation commission on requirements related to the historic district should we pursue lots 3221 i. of course we would be returning to the port commission and the

board on any updates on further action. that concludes our presentation. >> thank you. and thanks ultimately from mayor's office of housing, our director for being here, too, and brad benson and ms. prasad from the port. so, colleagues, i see no cards on this item, but let's open this up for public comment. good afternoon, members of the board. peter cohan, council committee housing organizations. we were asked to look at this ordinance several months back and give significant feedback to the mayor's office of housing and the port, much of which -- almost all of which was incorporated in some shape or form. but i want to just put a caveat in here. the jobs housing linkage program has been a very, very critical part of our affordable housing funding and we want to keep it that way. this is an unusual situation the port is facing and these

particular sites, but to reiterate the importance, the jobs housing linkage is in no respect something to be shift today a land dedication option. * shifted to this is discussed quite a bit in inclusionary housing. i think supervisor wiener knows we are finding out all the difficulties of being able to compare an apple and an orange in terms of land dedication to the typical mechanisms of either in-lieu fees or units. so, we're supportive of this ordinance to the extent that it lives within the universe of circumstances the port is facing. the things that we were particularly concentrating on were that there was some sort of site feasibility analysis that was very strongly done by mayor's office of housing and that the cost for those were actually built into the crediting. there is due diligence of various types, including ceqa analysis needs to be done to make sure a site is acceptable. and then also what the appraised value s. so, that was

something that was woven in very carefully. secondly, whatever deal was worked out between the agencies for land transfer and that cost crediting be brought back to the board for ratification so we have a degree of transparency here for us and everyone else. but otherwise we're supportive. thank you. * is >> thank you, mr. cohen. is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. so, colleagues, can we move this item forward with a positive recommendation without objection? thank you. thank you. ms. ausbury, please call hearing number 2. >> hearing to receive update from the office of economic and work force development, mayor's office of housing, and the department of public works on the progress of the octavia boulevard project, central freeway ancillary projects and the disposition of central freeway excess parcels. >> thank you. supervisor olague is the sponsor of this item. i'm not sure if one of her staff is here.

perhaps we can start with the presentation from department. and i see ken rich up here from the office of economic and work force development. >> yes, pardon me while we try to get the powerpoint up here. >> colleagues, i know that we have a number of powerpoints that are in front of us and different materials that were presented to us already. and some maps as well that are done. >> okay, sorry about that. must be a new version of powerpoint. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm ken rich with the office of economic and work force development, and we're here to give you a status report on our ongoing octavia boulevard program. as we all know, not long ago the central freeway, a double decker freeway structure, extended across market street headed north, ending at turk

street. the central [speaker not understood] was badly damaged in the earthquake as we all know ands was replaced. eventually the elevated structure was removed and replaced by octavia boulevard. as part that owe of that process, 22 parcels were transferred to the city which was expected to sell for development using the funds in return for a number of uses. and here you see the requirements of the agreement with caltrans, which included a number of obligations. the the city would undertake in exchange for ownership of these 22 parcels. those were construction of octavia boulevard and the associated creation and implementation of a traffic management plan as well as the rehabilitation of portions of van ness avenue which were to be adopted as highway 101. in addition, as part of the central freeway process to mitigate the environmental impact of the boulevard project, a group of what we call ancillary projects were prioritized. these projects are focused in

the area of south of market street where the raised freeway structure remains. they include first a suite of streetscape improvements along pearl street, elgin street, stevenson street, and jessie street. i'm happy to say the construction is now virtually complete on these. in addition, the central freeway cac prioritized two uses on caltrans owned parcels underneath the freeway near valencia and duboce. these were a skid board park and dog run facility. i'm also happy to be able to say that after lengthy discussions with caltrans who again is the owner of these parcels, we have reached agreement on terms so long term leases of these parcels and the board will be asked to approve these leases in the next few months so that dpw can begin construction on the skate park and the dog park early next year. and finally, the central freeway cac prioritized an active use at the portion of mccoppin street which had been dead ended due to the

reconstruction of the raised freeway structure. this area known as the mccoppin hub is being designed as an active plaza open space. construction is also expected to begin next year. >> mr. rich, that's to the south of market street, that's where the mccoppin hub is? >> that's right, south to mccoppin south where market hits valencia street. that's a short report on the 22 parcels we received from caltrans. you should have a map in front of you to help you refer to these if you're not clear on the presentation. so, in 2002, soon after the parcels had been transferred from caltrans to the city, the city entered into a transfer agreement with the redevelopment agency and this agreement the agency purchased two parcels, parcels a and c. a key tenant of this transfer agreement was a so-called

true-up division which said that any funds left over after the city fulfilled its obligation under the agreement with caltrans would be given back to the redevelopment agency to adjustor true up their purchase price. this was a foundational premise on which the transfer agreement was based. the redevelopment agency came forward with funds from the low mod housing fund which were instrumental in the construction of octavia boulevard with the understanding that the purchase price would be adjusted in the future. in addition, the transfer agreement included an option to purchase an additional five parcels, parcels g, k, o, q, and u should they so choose. and, in fact, the agency did exercise its option to produce an additional five parcels -- excuse me, to purchase an additional five parcels at a total cost of $12 million. the total amount paid by the

redevelopment agency from the low mod housing fund was $17.8 million. since the edition solution of the redevelopment agency earlier this year, the mayor's office of housing has assumed ownership of the redevelopment agency parcels on octavia boulevard. * dissolution since the market octavia plan was adopted the city has sold or signed purchase agreements for seven additional parcels beyond the ones i already mentioned. oh, i think i'm one slide off, i apologize. let me find my place back here. okay. since the market octavia plan was adopted the city has signed or sold or signed purchase agreements for seven additional parcels s, h, j, p and v for a total of 21.7 million dollars.

* f the city made a conscious decision that beyond the sale of the aforementioned parcel to the redevelopment agency -- i see, my notes are in a different order than the slides. i apologize. let me go back. all right. i apologize. my notes are stapled in the wrong order here. let me address this slide here. the city made a conscious decision that beyond the sale of the first parcels to the redevelopment agency it would wait to sell the larger parcels until the market octavia community planning process had been successfully completed. here on the screen you will see the sales that did occur prior to the plan adoption which were focused mostly on subdividing existing parcels into more regular shapes and selling oddly shaped remainders mostly to adjoining property owners. these sales generated $5.4 million for a total premarket octavia adoption of $23 million. okay. now we're on this slide.

apologize again. since the plan was adopted, the market octavia plan, the city has sold or signed purchase agreements for seven additional parcels f, h, j, p and v for a total of $excuse me, f, h, g, p, n and m for a total of $21.7 million. >> ken, can i just break in here before you get to anticipated parcel sales? >> yes. he it to just say we're joined by supervisor christina olague, the sponsor of this legislate atheistsv i'd just like to give her an opportunity to give her remarks. thank you. * >> thank you to everyone that is here today for this item. i have heard questions from different groups of neighbors, advocates and on developers about the status of the ok [ta-eufpl/ctavia boulevard projects. i wanted to make sure we begin to publicly address the questions that the community has around the plans for the different parcels. the larger projects and the disposition of parcels o and p requires the involvement from several different agencies and

in that work there are really three key areas that frequently come up from my office. * obviously transportation is one of those issues, and along with that i'm interested in hearing about both the rains for the affordable housing component and the expectations we can have around the timeline and community participation. i would also appreciate having some understanding of the possibility of temporary or interim, and i want to emphasize pop-up gardens, farms or other similar installations that will keep the site active until the groundbreaking. what i hope will become more clear in today's hearing is the direction we are going with both the market rate and affordable housing parcels, the size of the existing commitment the city has made toward transit improvements in comparison to housing and the type of commitment we can make to the neighbors and community

around the city engaging in a dialogue that is both open and action-oriented. in addition to the significant budgetary impact, these parcels are at an intersection of land use issues along with neighborhood services. so, i want to ensure that we view the transit and affordable housing conversation through a lens of neighborhood and community impacts. i would like to thank openly and theresa yunga from the mayor's office of housing for being here and i would like to also acknowledge ken rich who will -- who is making the presentation. so, those are my comments. just want today put that on the record. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor olague. mr. rich, please continue. >> the parcels you see on the screen now are those that are remaining to be sold. everything else that came before this is either already sold or in contract to be sold. these are the parcels that remain to be sold. we expect to issue an rfp for

parcels r, s and t in the next couple of months. parcel l is the -- is part of the proxy project and we expect to wait a few years before putting that parcel up for sale. so, just to quickly cover temporary use because the supervisor mentioned. because of the thing previous several years we saw land prices lower significantly historically, [speaker not understood] some central freeway parcels until the market recovered. and the city wanted to see -- soroush-azar i, till the market recovered and the city would see a better sale price. while rate waiting for the market to recover, we heard from neighbors they didn't want to see vacant lots the next five years. aggressively we pursued innovative temporary uses on the parcels. on parcels k and l you will currently find proxy, which is a mixed use retail pop-up which currently has coffee, ice cream, food trucks and a beer garden.

proxy has exciting plans which will be presented to the board in the near future to build out the remainder of parcel k with more temporary activation in the years before parcel k is ready to be used for affordable housing development. on parcels o and p the two largest parcel in the form of central freeway footprint are currently home to the hayes valley farm. and finally, parcels r and s which are very narrow parcels on octavia boulevard are currently used by the growing home community garden. i wanted to do just a few additional words about the hayes valley farm. as you know, an agreement was made with the farm for temporary use of parcels p and o which again are to form a off ramp parcels, the two largest parcels. these are the most significant sites for both affordable and market rate housing on the boulevard. these parcels were activated in 2010 by the farm and by early 2011 when it became apparent that a purchase agreement for parcel p was imminent, city

staff began a concerted effort to work with the farm to find a new location. i am pleased to be able to say that the farm is working closely with the community and the rec and parks department around the buchanan malls to bring the farm to that community. the current expectation that we will give notice to the farm on december 1st to vacate parcel p, but that they may remain on parcel o adjacent as a transition point until june 2013. after that point we expect to have a new location available as i just mentioned, and once construction begins on parcel p, it would not be safe for a farm operation to remain on parcel os. in addition, the mayor's office of housing intends to release an rfp for family affordable housing on parcel o by the end of this year. so, just to do a little bit more focus on the dollars and cents, the number on the top of this slide is what we have in the bank now, what the city has in the bank now from previous

sales and ongoing rental revenues from all of the parcels. minus what has been spent to date on designing and building octavia boulevard and on the ancillary projects. the rest of the numbers below show expected revenue from upcoming sales of all the remaining parcels for a total expected available revenue of $31 million. i'll also point out for the parcels that are not in contract yet, we might be a little low on the numbers and we'll have to revisit the appraised values of these parcels which has probably increased a little bit. on this slide in the first box is shown costs for all of the ancillary projects out of the total budget of about $11 million for the ancillary projects, 8.5 million remains to be spent. in the second box is the estimate for van ness avenue improvements to satisfy the city's obligation to caltrans to bring van ness avenue up to a state of good repair under the cooperative agreement. and again, this number for van ness avenue is still being looked at. this represents kind much a

maximum that we think it would cost. so, between van ness and the ancillary projects, we need to spend a total of about another 21 million on capital projects. this slide shows our expected ongoing revenue from leases. we have a few leases that will go on for quite a few years whereas the rest of the parcels will be sold and there will be no more lease revenue. parcel [speaker not understood] school district through 20 74. and we expect to receive parking revenue for a portion of one of the caltrans parcels under the freeway we're going to maintain for parking. and you see ñrthose two on the box. in

>> experiencing technical difficulties >> we believe the true up funds can be transferred following next year. as summing we close sales on parcels p and v which are the

larger dollar amounts. and these are already in contract and expected to close. funds for the van ness repaving will be available by the time repaving is scheduled to begin in about the year 2015. and again, one last note, the numbers above are still being finalized and not exact, but we don't expect them to move more than a few hundred thousand dollars in any direction. almost finished here. just a couple words on the -- to give the committee a picture of those items which should be coming before the board in the near future. moving forward; we need to complete the central freeway ancillary projects as i mentioned, rehabilitate van ness avenue. some of those parcels which are not in contract, and also make sure that we return the excess funds to the mayor's office of housing. as for those items where expected to come before the board in the near future, you see on the slide both leases with caltrans for the skid park

and dog run [speaker not understood]. the hub will need to be vacated. in addition we expect to request a minor adjustment of planning code requirement for the two small parcels m and n. as a reminder those items which you have already authorized via a 2009 ordinance are shown on the bottom of the slide and so the disposition of the remaining parcels at market rate are already authorized by the board. this concludes my presentation. olson lee from the mayor's office of housing is going to say a couple concluding words. and we also have representatives from real estate and dpw here if there's any questions for them. >> thank you, mr. rich. and olson lee is our director of mayor's office of housing. >> thank you very much, supervisors. olson lee. ken rich's presentation pretty much covered the, sort of the nuts and bolts and sort of the dollar amounts of the plan

going forward. i just wanted to talk a little bit about how both first the redevelopment agency and [speaker not understood] the mayor's office of housing has used and intends to use the affordable housing parcels. clearly one of the goals of the early involvement of the redevelopment agency was to front money towards the completion of the boulevard and facilitate that at a time when there were not entitlements for the remaining parcels. and, so, we were able to enter into agreements with the city early on, provide funds, funds that were from our low mod housing funds to the city so that the city could begin working on the octavia boulevard. and we were very, very glad to do that, in part, because one of the goals of the -- both the neighbors as well as the city

was to restitch the neighborhood. not only were we talking about transportation improvements. we're talking about how we're going to rebuild upon those vacant parcels and how those vacant parcels add to a reinvigorated neighborhood. and i'm very, very pleased that work with the neighbors in creating half of those units that were -- are being projected as affordable housing units and doing that in a way that has been very, very sensitive to the notion of quality design, to the notion of diverse populations being served. the first two affordable housing parcels, parcel a and parcel c were senior developments. the next development was a affordable rental development for people with developme